It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So it would be something like the original creation where God gave His life that all life has its own existence in. Where Jesus had another sort of life essence or something which he gave up and by that being dispersed about, we are able to incorporate it into our living in such a way as to have a freedom we did not have previously. I'm not trying to argue at all, just trying to fit it into my head a bit.
I'd be willing to believe that the body of Jesus completely dissolved into its individual molecules and dispersed throughout the world. That would be fitting. We've all got a piece of him. He's with us still. That's my religion.
Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by jmdewey60
I don't know how far you're willing to go with this. After all, if the physical resurrection of Jesus is denied, all of Christianity comes crashing down in ruins.
Point 1) No one even claims to have seen Jesus get up and walk out of the tomb. Even though the women were close enough to the tomb to see the angel come down and the stone roll away, in Matthew.
Point 2) The resurrection then is based upon the "testimony" of angels, and appearances of some one not readily recognizable as the same Jesus.
Point 3) This "risen Jesus" quotes fictitious scripture and gets people to come up with bizarre concoctions in order to claim "the scripture was fulfilled"
I think that the resurrection is based on "visions" people had of a risen Jesus. Such as Stephen's while he was being stoned and Paul's on the road. As far as that counts, I could counter with my own vision and count it as equally valid, moreso, as far as I'm concerned because it isn't second, third, or fourth hand testimony.
What actually is gained by believing in the resurrection besides a false hope of personal ego continuation.
edit on 1-9-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by NorEaster
Everything that you know about Jesus - everything, including his name - has been provided to you by the Vatican. Everything that the Vatican possesses, concerning information about Jesus - everything, including the notion that he ever existed at all - was provided to them by the Roman Empire.
Try not to forget that one very important fact when dealing with this issue.
Thanks.
Originally posted by racasan
The point is, if there where some spiritual teacher wondering around Palestine 2000 years ago, his teaching must have become so obscured or corrupted since his day (such as the Romans bolting the sun god myth onto his story) that it would be an impossible task to figure out what his teachings where - I don't think you need angels to account for what happened with Christianity - since the whole thing is probably the work of men
Remember to these early people the sun was very important and was probably thought of as godlike, so its decline, apparent death in mid-winter and resurrection 3 days later would become part of the cultures stories
I don't think you need angels to account for what happened with Christianity - since the whole thing is probably the work of men
The powers that be have hijacked the soul of Jesus, and they have said it belongs in the Christian church, named after Him.
It does NOT belong there.
This is what they have hijacked.
So it would be something like the original creation where God gave His life that all life has its own existence in. Where Jesus had another sort of life essence or something which he gave up and by that being dispersed about, we are able to incorporate it into our living in such a way as to have a freedom we did not have previously. I'm not trying to argue at all, just trying to fit it into my head a bit.
Everything that you know about Jesus - everything, including his name - has been provided to you by the Vatican. Everything that the Vatican possesses, concerning information about Jesus - everything, including the notion that he ever existed at all - was provided to them by the Roman Empire.
I have a way of sending threads into the off-topic region by posting on them so hopefully someone else will post and delve into this question a bit.
Jesus shared in the same one life.
In fact a lot of info on this thread while looking and sounding like its been thought out couldnt hold up to a 101 rhetorical critique
30) Jesus said, "Where there are three gods, they are gods.
Where there are two or one, I am with him."
- - Gospel of Thomas
JN 5:19 Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these.
11) Jesus said, "This heaven will pass away, and the one above
it will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living will
not die. In the days when you consumed what is dead, you made it
what is alive.
- - Gospel of Thomas
Looking at the Greek you see the word, panta, which could mean, everything.
For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does.
Lets not forget the Roman guards that were paid off by the Jewish religious leaders to keep quiet about what they saw.
He uses the phrase ‘he was manifested unto’ and not ‘they saw him’ which specific language tells you something about what is meant to be conveyed here – not a resuscitated corpse, but an epiphany (‘revelation’) of what was normally a pagan ‘divine god’ such as Isis, Osiris or Mithras.
MT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.
Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by pthena
Good morning pthena,
While I don't agree with the assertion, I won't argue it altogether (and is an interesting thought, so you get a star regardless).
As to your idea itself though, I've got an issue with the thinking in point 1:
1) To use the life and teachings of an obviously extraordinary person in order to bolster the "authority" of the Old Testament. It should be obvious to any student of ancient mythology that without this "validation", the Old Testament would be just another book on the shelf next to Homer, Hesiod, Ovid, and etc.
Is it really possible that the conspirators would have considered this angle, when 'Jesus' and christianity itself were initially rejected and considered heretical to the bulk of jews & judaism (as they are to this day) and were pretty close to being stomped out both by the first century jews as well as the might of the Roman empire?
Christianity was driven underground and actively percecuted to the point of having secret meetings, coded identifiers, and the state-sanctioned murder of its adherents, while judaism itself was accepted and the jews a welcome part of the empire (somewhat, until rebellions arose).
I have to believe it's actually the counter, as Matthew presented, wheras the tanakh/old testament was used to bolster the claims & authority of 'Jesus'...but his life and actions were a far cry from the politial dominance the jews primarily expected of messiah given their situation with Rome at the time, so even that for the most part did not carry too far.
Just my thoughts on this, thanks for an interesting post even if I have to disagree with it in general.
EDIT:
On a side note, I wanted to add that I don't think anything in christianity has to do with killing the world. Although we shouldn't participate too much in its distractions or foibles (christians are generally to be in the world, but not of it), we should have no desire or perceived intent to kill it, either. I think the world is a wide and wonderous place full of beauty and the majesty of a creator...I just wish humanity didn't seem to spend so much time and effort in general seeming to try to do exactly what you seem to state christians seek, or otherwise getting so distracted with our own issues that we can't see it. Believers should be stewards of the creation, and seek to preserve it.
edit on 9/1/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)